Communicated on 10 March 2017

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 5471/14 Zhuleta AMARIKYAN against Armenia lodged on 28 December 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Zhuleta Amarikyan , is an Armenian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Yerevan. She is represented before the Court by Mr T. Hayrapetyan , a lawyer practising in Yerevan.

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant was diagnosed with allergic contact dermatitis, and received inpatient treatment from 25 February 2013 to 5 March 2013. On the basis of her diagnosis, doctors excluded certain types of food from her diet, including honey.

On 30 May 2013 the applicant was forcibly taken to Avan Psychiatric Hospital (“the hospital”) for compulsory treatment, following complaints by her relatives regarding her alleged violent conduct.

On 1 June 2013 a panel of psychiatric experts initially concluded that the applicant was suffering from severe delirium.

On 4 June 2013, at the request of the head of the hospital, the Avan and Nor-Nork District Court of Yerevan authorised compulsory inpatient treatment of the applicant at the hospital for an indefinite period of time.

On 6 June 2013 the monitoring mission of the Helsinki Citizens ’ Assembly Vanadzor Office (“the HCAV”), a human rights organisation, visited the hospital with the aim of monitoring its compliance with various human rights standards, including those relating to living conditions. The members of the monitoring mission interviewed the applicant and promised to help her with legal assistance.

The applicant alleges that the hospital staff forced her to take medication without checking whether it was suitable for her, taking into account the fact that she had an allergy.

According to the applicant, as the food in the hospital was of poor quality, she was initially unable to eat anything for several days. Later, with the help of a nurse, she had to buy some snacks from shops outside the hospital which sold food. She alleges, in particular, that the breakfast provided at the hospital consisted of a bun and some honey, while the lunch consisted of a porridge made of rice containing no salt or oil. As the applicant was allergic, she refused to eat honey for breakfast. As for the porridge, she felt ill when she tried to eat it, seven days after her admission.

The applicant further alleges that, throughout her detention at the hospital, she did not have an adequate place to sleep or privacy. In particular, she complains that she had no bed, mattress, duvet, sheets, pillow or pillowcase. She had to sleep on a couch placed in an open area in a corridor near the cafeteria. When she asked the hospital staff to provide her with a proper place to sleep, she was told that she was supposed to have brought bedding with her. She was unable to sleep after 6 a.m. because of noise near her sleeping area.

As regards personal hygiene, the applicant alleges that she was not provided with soap, a towel, toothbrush or toothpaste. She regularly had to ask the staff for toilet paper. She did not have a shower during her stay at the hospital, while other patients could have a shower every eight to ten days. She had to clean her skin with a cloth, using cold water. The applicant alleges, without further explanation, that she had no opportunity to change her clothes during her stay at the hospital.

The applicant was not allowed to have a walk outdoors during her detention, while other patients were allowed to. Her communication with the outside world was restricted, and she was not allowed to make any calls from her mobile phone.

On 27 June 2013 a lawyer visited the applicant to obtain her authority with regard to legal representation and the protection of her rights.

On 30 June 2013 the hospital discharged the applicant from the hospital, after allegedly administering a forced injection of an unknown drug, as a result of which she had pain in her leg and back.

On 25 December 2013 the Chairman of the HCAV sent a report to the applicant ’ s lawyer containing a summary of the findings of the monitoring mission of 6 June 2013 regarding the conditions of the hospital. As regards the particular circumstances of the applicant ’ s living conditions, the report stated that the applicant had been sleeping on a couch placed in an open area in a corridor and had had no opportunity to have a walk outdoors. As regards the general conditions in the hospital, the report stated that the living conditions were inhuman and degrading. In particular, it stressed the patients ’ lack of access to items of personal hygiene, such as toilet paper, towels, toothpaste and toothbrushes. According to the report, the patients had to ask the hospital staff for toilet paper. The report stressed that the patients could have a bath every seven to ten days and only for ten to fifteen minutes. It also mentioned that the food in the hospital was of poor quality, generally consisting of pasta or rice porridge which lacked an adequate amount of salt or oil. The report stated that the food lacked diversity, for example fruit and vegetables, despite the low cost of seasonal fruit and vegetables in the local markets. The report concluded that some patients found that “such food was suitable for pigs”.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention of the conditions of her detention at the psychiatric hospital. In particular, she complains that she had no proper place to sleep and no bed or bedding; there was a lack of personal space and items of personal hygiene; she was not able to have a bath on a regular basis; she did not have a personalised diet; she had no opportunity to have a walk outside; and that the food provided was inadequate.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Did the conditions of the applicant ’ s detention at Avan Psychiatric Hospital amount to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention?